Why isn't anything replacing mainline churches in the Northeast US?

[ParticularWife]

Expanded from another post. Theologically liberal and mainline churches are experiencing long term and serious decline. What's not known is that fundamentalist, Evangelical and stricter Confessional churches are actually growing. Not only that, but it's not even: in the Northeast it seems nothing replaced the mainline churches. But I'm the northwest and Arizona there are tons of little churches picking up the mission field. The fastest-growing churches in America are located in the Western states, including the Northwest, and are often conservative or evangelical in their theology.

In my area, there are pseudo-Christian cults and self-help seminars disguised as churches, focusing more on leftist politics or wealth than the Bible. Despite—or perhaps because of—this environment, strongly Bible-centered churches are flourishing. For instance, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I attend has doubled in size since 2015. Within a reasonable drive, there are at least fourteen churches, including Primitive Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Particular Baptist, OPC, Protestant Reformed Church in America, and RCUS congregations.

It seems that here in the Northwest, when mainline churches decline, biblically focused churches emerge to fill the void. This contrasts with the Northeast, where such a resurgence appears less common.

Why is this the case? Is it because people in the Northeast are more tied to traditional mainline denominations? Does the West's history of establishing small, independent churches since the 19th century play a role? Could the Northwest's culture of religious individualism and the tendency of conservative churches to position themselves as countercultural also contribute to this phenomenon?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Unfortunately the Northeast has a long history of transition to a liberal community….to the point of embracing WOKE culture. Evidence the UMC, the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In NJ where I live anyway there are few or any replacement churches…and if you are lucky to find them they are miles away so there is no community. One question I like to ask prospective churches is, “an infant dies at birth without baptism, hearing the gospel, selecting a Faith, etc where is that infant now”? And then, a child goes brain damaged prior to hearing the gospel, the brain damage is severe so the child can’t process consept of Christ, God, Gospel etc. where does the child go when it dies?

 

[Cathode]

In NJ where I live anyway there are few or any replacement churches…and if you are lucky to find them they are miles away so there is no community. One question I like to ask prospective churches is, “an infant dies at birth without baptism, hearing the gospel, selecting a Faith, etc where is that infant now”? And then, a child goes brain damaged prior to hearing the gospel, the brain damage is severe so the child can’t process consept of Christ, God, Gospel etc. where does the child go when it dies?

Calvin taught that infants would go to hell in that case.

It’s a standing blasphemy against God to assign this cruelty to Him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvin taught that infants would go to hell in that case.

It’s a standing blasphemy against God to assign this cruelty to Him.

I agree

 

[ParticularWife]

Calvin taught that infants would go to hell in that case.

No, he didn't. Calvin said some infants may be among the elect, but was cautious not to say much either way. It's actually certain particular Baptists and a couple of Reformed theologians who affirm that, as men are saved by the Word, infants must be saved the same way as adults (they still believe the Holy Spirit can cause actions to hear and understand, even if mentally disabled or a child).

It’s a standing blasphemy against God to assign this cruelty to Him.

I'm not going to argue the doctrine is true, but I don't agree with your assessment of its implications. All people deserve to burn in Hell due to our rebellious nature. Including babies. Though, for reasons somewhat analogical, I've long been critical of duty-faith and duty-repentance.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I’ve been long critical of duty faith and repentance as well…. And that if you and your family are of a particular faith based group & community that the child (newborn) inherits that faith and is therefore protected from the evils of this world and the next. Please understand that this weighs heavy on the harts& minds of parents who loose children in infantry.

 

[ParticularWife]

I’ve been long critical of duty faith and repentance as well…. And that if you and your family are of a particular faith based group & community that the child (newborn) inherits that faith and is therefore protected from the evils of this world and the next. Please understand that this weighs heavy on the harts& minds of parents who loose children in infantry.

It’s understandable to have anxiety over the fate of infants, and others near and dear to us. After all, I had studied Reformed theology before becoming a mother. God’s decree is not determined by human ability, age, or understanding, but solely by His sovereign good pleasure (Romans 9:15). The Scriptures are sparse on the specific spiritual state of infants, and this is intentional. It directs us not to pry into the secret things of God but to rest in the truth of Ephesians 1:11 and Deuteronomy 29:29. Calvin rebukes curiosity that would presume to judge God's counsel, calling believers to trust God.
John Gill in Body of Divinity addresses the fate of infants,

“It is certain that all persons are born in sin, and that all sin deserves eternal death...but the salvation of any, and so of infants, is of sovereign grace.”

Gill argued that elect infants who die in infancy are undoubtedly saved, but this salvation is grounded solely in God’s eternal decree, not in any assumed innocence or merit.
Gill wrote about the salvation of elect infants in his commentary on Job 14:4-5 and Romans 5:12-21, that God’s grace in Christ is sufficient for elect infants.
Benjamin Keach in The Child's Delight,

“Though we cannot determine the election of particular infants, we may hope that many are included in the number of the elect.”

Keach places the matter firmly in God’s hands, trusting His justice and mercy rather than conjecture about the spiritual state of the infant.
John Calvin has similar views in his Institutes (book 4,chapter 16), but Calvin's argument is influenced by his baby sprinkling tendencies:

“God’s election extends even to infants, and His covenant of grace is not annulled by their age. While we cannot define the number of the elect among them, we rest assured in the justice and mercy of God.”

In Calvin's Commentaries on Genesis 17:7 he talks about the Covenant promise to believers, and this is often interpreted in Presbyterian circles in favor of a special providence on this subject.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It’s understandable to have anxiety over the fate of infants, and others near and dear to us. After all, I had studied Reformed theology before becoming a mother. God’s decree is not determined by human ability, age, or understanding, but solely by His sovereign good pleasure (Romans 9:15). The Scriptures are sparse on the specific spiritual state of infants, and this is intentional. It directs us not to pry into the secret things of God but to rest in the truth of Ephesians 1:11 and Deuteronomy 29:29. Calvin rebukes curiosity that would presume to judge God's counsel, calling believers to trust God.
John Gill in Body of Divinity addresses the fate of infants,

Gill argued that elect infants who die in infancy are undoubtedly saved, but this salvation is grounded solely in God’s eternal decree, not in any assumed innocence or merit.
Gill wrote about the salvation of elect infants in his commentary on Job 14:4-5 and Romans 5:12-21, that God’s grace in Christ is sufficient for elect infants.
Benjamin Keach in The Child's Delight,

Keach places the matter firmly in God’s hands, trusting His justice and mercy rather than conjecture about the spiritual state of the infant.
John Calvin has similar views in his Institutes (book 4,chapter 16), but Calvin's argument is influenced by his baby sprinkling tendencies:

In Calvin's Commentaries on Genesis 17:7 he talks about the Covenant promise to believers, and this is often interpreted in Presbyterian circles in favor of a special providence on this subject.

I’m at odds with the OPC answers primarily because they do not walk lock step with me as a Primitive Baptist ie Paedo vs Credo, convenantial theology, Calvin commentaries that influence Presbyterian communities that do not coordinate with Baptist communities, sacramental leanings etc. However I did ask your opinion and you did provide an answer via the OPC prospective. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[ParticularWife]

I’m at odds with the OPC answers primarily because they do not walk lock step with me as a Primitive Baptist ie Paedo vs Credo, convenantial theology, Calvin commentaries that influence Presbyterian communities that do not coordinate with Baptist communities, sacramental leanings etc. However I did ask your opinion and you did provide an answer via the OPC prospective. Thank you for clarifying.

Well, Gill and Keach are definitely Baptists, but they're 17th century strict Baptists, which is closer to my personal view (I am in a Presbyterian Church, but I'm not Presbyterian). Calvin isn't exactly a Presbyterian, but he's a sort of proto-Presby.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, Gill and Keach are definitely Baptists, but they're 17th century strict Baptists, which is closer to my personal view (I am in a Presbyterian Church, but I'm not Presbyterian). Calvin isn't exactly a Presbyterian, but he's a sort of proto-Presby.

Sister, your entitled to go to any church you wish, but when I went to the OPC they gave me an answer that shocked me….see the question was asked about my child and the eventual answer was that without all the conditions like baptism, being members of the church etc., my child is in hell. Of course I became angry because I perceived the answer to be legalistic & cold…see I was in training at the time to join that particular church. To add insult to injury, the conversation took place on the phone with three pastors so together they pronounced judgement. Later one of these guys called me back to apologize but the damage was done. How could I go to my wife and share that these guys told me that our baby was in hell…worse, since we were unmarried at the time & not members of the church that our child was definitely hell bound. That news would have hurt her irreparably. What I had to do is tell that pastor that we would not accept that answer and backed out of joining their church…. That’s when I changed direction and began interviewing Baptist churches eventually becoming a PB… they don’t relegate anyone who hasn’t heard the gospel to hell, God bless them.